MAGEE v DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
Docket No. 126219
Supreme Court of Michigan
Decided March 8, 2005
472 MICH 108
Jacquelyn V. Magee brought an action in the Macomb Circuit Court against DaimlerChrysler Corporation, alleging sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge from employment. The defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that the action was barred by the statute of limitations because it was not brought within three years of any of the alleged acts of discrimination or retaliation. The trial court, James M. Biernat, Sr., J., granted the defendant‘s motion. The Court оf Appeals, SCHUETTE, P.J., and METER and OWENS, JJ., affirmed the grant of summary disposition with regard to the constructive discharge claim and reversed the grant of summary disposition with regard to the other claims. Unpublished memorandum opinion, issued March 2, 2004 (Docket No. 243847). The Court‘s decision was based on the fact that the action was brought within three years of the date that the plaintiff resigned her employment. The defendant sought leave to appeal.
In an opinion per curiam, signed by Chief Justice TAYLOR, and Justices CORRIGAN, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, the Supreme Court held:
The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the plaintiff‘s claims accrued on the datе she terminated her employment as opposed to her last day of work. No discriminatory conduct is alleged to have occurred after the plaintiff‘s last day of work. The claims were not timely filed within three years of that date. The part of the Court of Appeals judgment that reversed part of the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and the case must be remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of the order granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant with regard to all the claims brought by the plaintiff.
Justice WEAVER, concurring, stated that she concurs in the result of the opinion per curiаm because the applicable three-year
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the circuit court.
Justice CAVANAGH, joined by Justice KELLY, dissenting, stated that the defendant‘s failure to stop the harassment after the plaintiff made repeated complaints was discriminatory conduct. The conduct occurred during the three years that preceded the filing of the complaint; therefore, the complaint was timely filed.
Tucker & Hughes, P.C. (by Juanita Gavin Hughes), for the plaintiff.
Cattel, Tuyn & Rudzewicz, PLLC (by Tomas A. Cattel and Debra A. Colby), for the defendant.
PER CURIAM. In this case involving the Civil Rights Act, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff‘s claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination, and retaliation were timely filed, because the lawsuit was brought within three years of the date she resigned her employment with defendant.1
We conclude that plaintiff‘s claims were not filed within the limitations period because none of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory conduct occurred within the three years that preceded the filing of the complaint. We therefore reverse that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the matter to the trial court for reinstatement of the trial court‘s grant of summary disposition to defendant.
I
Plaintiff Jacquelyn Magee was an hourly production employee who began wоrk for defendant Daimler-
On February 1, 2002, Magee filed a lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act,
In her complaint, Magee alleges that she suffered harassment from the 1980s until her last day of work on Sеptember 12, 1998, and that her supervisors periodically retaliated against her during this period as a result of her resistance to the harassment. Magee alleges that this constant harassment caused her to leave her job at DaimlerChrysler on September 12, 1998, and that she decided to resign on February 2, 1999, because she anticipated that the harassment would continue if she returned.
DaimlerChrysler moved for summary disposition, asserting that Magee‘s February 1, 2002, complaint failed to allege any discriminatory acts after September 12, 1998, and that the complaint was therefore not filed within the three-year period of limitations applicable to Civil Rights Act claims,
The trial court initially denied DaimlerChrysler‘s motion without prejudice, allowing Magee to amend her complaint to allege harassment or retaliation occurring
Magee appealed the trial court‘s ruling to the Court of Appeals, which relied on this Court‘s recent dеcision in Collins v Comerica Bank, 468 Mich 628; 664 NW2d 713 (2003), to reverse the lower court‘s dismissal of the harassment, retaliation, and discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that these claims were timely, because they were filed within three years of the date of Magee‘s resignation.
DaimlerChrysler then sought leave to apрeal to this Court. After hearing oral argument from both parties on the application, this Court has now determined that the Court of Appeals misapplied Collins and erroneously reinstated Magee‘s Civil Rights Act claims.
II
In the absence of disputed facts, whether a cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a question of lаw, which this Court reviews de novo. Boyle v Gen Motors Corp, 468 Mich 226, 229-230; 661 NW2d 557 (2003). Likewise, this Court reviews de novo rulings on summary disposition motions. Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 664; 685 NW2d 648 (2004).
III
In Collins, supra at 633, this Court held that a cause of action for discriminatory termination does not accrue until the date of termination. The plaintiff employee, Gwendolyn Collins, was suspended pending an investi-
Relying on Collins, the Court of Appeals in this case reasoned that Magee‘s claim also accrued on her termination date as opposed to her last day of work. The Court acknowledged that Magee resigned, and was nоt terminated. But it found significant that “her last day of work was followed by a period in which she was on a medical leave of absence” and that she was employed by DaimlerChrysler while on leave. Accordingly, it concluded that her causes of action, if any, arose on February 2, 1999.
The Court of Appeals reliance on Collins to reinstate Magеe‘s claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination, and retaliation is misplaced. Magee was never terminated from her employment and does not allege discriminatory termination. She bases her Civil Rights Act claims on alleged discriminatory conduct that occurred before her leаve of absence. Indeed, when given a chance to amend her complaint to plead claims falling within the period of limitations, Magee was unable to do so. Collins, a discriminatory termination case, simply does not apply in this situation.
The dissent argues that the defendant violated the Civil Rights Act within the three years preceding the filing of plaintiff‘s claim by failing to “prevent future harassment. . . .” Post at 115. This interpretation of the Civil Rights Act amounts to а continuing violations doctrine in which an employer is continuously liable from the time it or its agent violates the act until the time that violation is remedied by the employer. Thus, in Justice CAVANAGH‘s view, a plaintiff subjected to a hostile work environment on December 31, 2005, may file a timely complaint in December 2030 if the employer has failed to remedy the sexual harassment in the ensuing twenty-five years. This theory renders nugatory the period of limitations established by the Legislature in
For these reasons, we reverse the relevant part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Macomb Circuit Cоurt for reinstatement of the order granting DaimlerChrysler‘s motion for summary disposition.
TAYLOR, C.J., and CORRIGAN, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, JJ., concurred.
CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). I disagree with the majority‘s contention that defendant engaged in no discriminatory conduct during the three years that preceded the filing of plaintiff‘s complaint. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff began working for defendant in 1976. Over the years, plaintiff complained of various incidents of harassment. Plaintiff complained that her foreman was making sexual advances toward her. When plaintiff was assigned to a different supervisor, her former foreman still worked in the same complex and continued to harass her. Because of the harassment, plaintiff was ordered by her psychiatrist to take an approximately four-month medical leave. When plaintiff returned from her medical leave, her former foreman was still working in the same complex as plаintiff.
A subsequent foreman of plaintiff‘s also made sexual advances toward her, including intentionally touching plaintiff‘s breast. For an entire year, plaintiff also complained to defendant about a sign in the men‘s
While she was employed by defendant, plaintiff‘s union steward also made sexually suggestive comments about plaintiff‘s “ass” and touched her in an inappropriatе manner. Plaintiff‘s coworkers made sexually suggestive comments about her body and began hitting her with cardboard sticks. When plaintiff asked her union steward to intercede, he just laughed and said, “Yea, hit that ass.” Plaintiff repeatedly complained to defendant, yet nothing was done. When plaintiff requested a transfеr, her union steward told her that she could transfer if she had sex with him. Once plaintiff was transferred, the union steward told her that she “owed” him and he wanted her to have sex with him. He later stopped plaintiff from training for another position because she was not having sex with him. Plaintiff again complained to a forеman, but he said there was nothing he could do. Because of the stress plaintiff was suffering as a result of the harassment, plaintiff was then ordered to take a third medical leave.
Because defendant took no steps to stop the harassment while plaintiff was on her third medical leave, she was forced to decide not to return to the harassing environment. Defendant‘s discriminatory conduct in failing to take steps to prevent future harassment continued throughout plaintiff‘s medical leave. Requiring plaintiff to return to the harassing setting to work in the unchanged environment would be unreasonable and possibly dangerous to plaintiff‘s health, considering that her doctor had ordered three medical leaves because of the stress of the harassment. As plaintiff explained, in order to have even been considered for a
This case presents a unique set of circumstances because plaintiff‘s doctor-ordered medical leave was directly related to the harassment. Plaintiff‘s final medical leave was actually her third leave related to the stress of the harassment she suffered. Defendant maintained a hostile work environment despite plaintiff‘s repeated complаints. Defendant‘s failure to stop the harassment after these complaints is, under the facts of this case, discriminatory conduct. Because this conduct occurred during the three years that preceded the filing of plaintiff‘s lawsuit, I find that her complaint was timely filed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
KELLY, J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.